In a recent OP I looked at a discovery by mathematician Norman Wildberger, who found a general method for generating power series solutions of polynomial equations of any degree. Wildberger has an interesting, extremely unconventional and (in my opinion) flawed philosophy of mathematics, which among other things denies the existence of irrational numbers. Here he explains why √2 doesn’t exist, at least not in the way that mainstream mathematicians thinks it does:
There’s lots to criticize about this, but I’ll save it for the comments.
Annaka Harris is a writer who’s best known for her book, Conscious: A Brief Guide to the Fundamental Mystery of the Mind (2019), which discusses issues such as free will, panpsychism and the hard problem of consciousness. In this interview with Alex O’Connor, she defends the idea that consciousness goes “all the way down” to the level of fundamental particles – although she takes pains to emphasize that this consciousness is pretty minimal: it’s a fleeting, evanescent consciousness without a self, memories or thoughts. She also defends the idea that the entire universe is one vast collection of conscious experiences, and she maintains that the self is an illusion. Viewers are invited to watch the interview and leave their comments on the thread. Enjoy!
Some of you may remember a wild discussion we had at TSZ a couple of years ago, spanning eight months, debating whether “3” and “3.0” refer to the same number and whether measurements can be expressed using real numbers. (Yes, really.) One of the questions that arose during that discussion was on the boundary between pure and applied mathematics, and DNA_Jock referenced the mathematician Norman Wildberger’s opinion on that topic.
Recently, Michael Alter (who surely needs no introduction here) was recently interviewed by Jacob Berman on “History Valley.” The topic of the interview was Gary Habermas’s “minimal facts” case for the Resurrection. For the benefit of listeners, I should point out that Michael Alter frequently gets short of breath these days after talking for more than a paragraph, and he informs me that he now relies on a CPAP machine, which he wasn’t wearing during the interview. However, the key points he makes are as follows: (a) Habermas still hasn’t disclosed his list of scholars who endorse the “minimal facts” he uses to make his case for the Resurrection; (b) Arab scholars (who are mostly Muslims, with a very different perspective on the Resurrection from secular and Christian scholars) are conspicuously absent from Habermas’s list, which mainly focuses on English-speaking scholars; and (c) most scholars who have written books about the Resurrection of Jesus are priests, ministers, or people who teach on Christian campuses, who tend to have a vested interest in defending the Resurrection. Although I’m a Christian myself, I have to say I think the methodological criticisms Michael Alter makes are valid ones. Anyway, without further ado, here’s the interview. More posts will be following in the next few days.
In response to comments questioning his mental stability and cognitive capacity, Donald Trump once tweeted:
Actually throughout my life my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being like really smart…I went from VERY successful businessman to top T.V. Star…….to President of the United States (on my first try). I think that would qualify as not smart but genius….and a very stable genius at that!
I’ve decided to take a detailed look at the Trump administration’s tariff policy and the formula they use to set rates, and I figured I might as well make an OP out of it so that others could benefit from my homework. My critique is based on the US Trade Representative’s (USTR’s) explanation of the tariffs, which can be found here:
“Two AIs — ChatGPT, the believer in God, and DeepSeek, the atheist AI — go head-to-head on the existence of God. From the fine-tuning of the universe to the source of morality and the eternal perks of belief, who makes the stronger case? Watch as seven AI judges score each argument and reveal the ultimate winner.”
Speaking as a philosopher, I thought the arguments mounted on both sides were quite good, but there was very little that I hadn’t heard before. Speaking as an English teacher, on the other hand, I was highly impressed with the quality of the rebuttals, on both sides. Although I’m a Christian, I have to agree that DeepSeek won the argument. However, one commenter who observed the debate thought that the two sides didn’t get to the real nitty-gritty: the existence of consciousness itself as evidence for God. (This is an argument which impresses philosophy student and blogger Matthew Adelstein, as well.) Finally, it seems that debating is another skill in which AI can outperform most humans.
Recently, the Youtuber Skydivephil (whose real name is Phil Halper) posted a 24-minute video critiquing Christian philosopher Michael Jones (who goes by the moniker Inspiring Philosophy) regarding the problem of animal suffering. Viewers can watch it here:
Michael Jones, Than Christopoulos and philosopher Trent Dougherty (who has written a book on the problem of animal suffering, in which he acknowledges its gravity but argues that animals will be abundantly recompensed in the afterlife and that God will also endow them with reason, and that once they are able to understand the spiritual significance of what happened to them on Earth, they will retrospectively consent to the suffering they were compelled to endure on Earth) then posted a two-hour point-by-point reply to Halper, which can be viewed below (the first hour is more than sufficient to get the overall picture of what they’re saying). I thought their reply was rather unfair on several points; hence the title of this post.
Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder has posted a video about a new paper on arxiv.org, titled “How to Make a Universe” by Paolo Bassani and João Magueijo, which proposes that small random changes to the “constants of nature” (perhaps one should call them parameters rather than constants) – such as the strength of gravity, the strength of the electromagnetic interaction, the masses of particles, and the speed of light – would eventually cause them to reach a settled state of equilibrium where they no longer vary, in pockets of the cosmos. The initial random changes in the constants of nature would allow energy conservation to be violated, and would therefore permit the creation of matter out of nowhere, without needing to appeal to the notion of a hypothetical “inflaton field” (for which there is no experimental evidence). It should be noted that the authors of the paper do not propose that our universe is uniquely optimal. All they are attempting to explain is why the constants of nature aren’t changing now. The authors’ proposal bears some resemblance to Lee Smolin’s hypothesis of “cosmological natural selection”, which postulates that new universes are created inside black holes. The authors make no appeal to black holes in their paper. However, they write (bolding is mine – VJT): “As in biological natural selection, some random mutations produce Universes with matter, others do not, or worse, produce negative energy/matter. One therefore needs the mutation game to be turned off and stability to establish itself to make sure any possible gains are preserved.”
Hossenfelder acknowledges that the authors of the paper still have some explaining to do: “They just assume that the constants can change somehow.” Nevertheless, when commenting on the work of one of the authors (João Magueijo), she adds: “I don’t know if he’s on the right track with this, but still it deserves being taken seriously.”
The authors summarize their conclusions as follows (bolding is mine): Continue reading →
Christian apologist Cameron Bertuzzi is a busy beaver. On January 30, 2025, he posted a video titled, “Millions Saw This Miracle — Why Do Christians Ignore It?”, in which he discussed an alleged series of apparitions of the Virgin Mary at Zeitoun, a suburb of Cairo, Egypt, which were witnessed by hundreds of thousands of people (including Christians and non-Christians alike) in the late 1960’s. Now, less than a week later, he has put up a new video, titled, “The Best Evidence for Christianity… Isn’t in the Bible?!”, in which he argues that the evidence for Christianity based on the Marian apparitions at Zeitoun is stronger than the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus from the New Testament, and challenging Protestants to face up to this fact:
Readers who watch the first six minutes of the video will get the gist of it. Later in the video, Bertuzzi rebuts Protestant arguments that the apparitions might have been demonic in origin.
In response to Bertuzzi’s latest video, I posted the following message:
In a video which is modestly titled, “The Trinity explained PERFECTLY! – No analogies REQUIRED! [MUST WATCH]” (June 8, 2024), Christian apologist Sam Shamoun of Answering Islam attempts to explain the Christian doctrine of the Trinity in 12 minutes. Unfortunately, all his argument shows is that he holds to an anthropomorphic notion of God, and that he rejects the notion that God has one Mind. To cut a long story short: he thinks God has three minds, each with its own thoughts, volitions and emotions (including the emotions of anger and sadness), and that all of these minds are somehow identical with one and the same being (God), sharing the same existence. He further argues that just because we don’t see a being that’s more than one person in the human realm, it doesn’t follow that there can’t be a multi-personal Being in the Divine realm. Confused? So am I.
In a recent 10-minute video, physicist Sabine Hossenfelder argues that we cannot rule out the possibility that the universe actually thinks, incredible as it may seem. In brief, the reasons why we cannot rule out this scenario are that (a) quantum physics is non-local, (b) even Einstein’s theory of general relativity is perfectly compatible with the existence of wormholes, which don’t respect locality and which could connect the universe with itself, and (c) additionally, Einstein’s theory of relativity does not rule out the existence of faster-than-light signals; all it rules out is the possibility of going from speeds below that of light to speeds above. Moreover, faster-than-light travel would not create causality paradoxes, as commonly believed. What all this adds up to is that the universe could be self-connected on a micro-scale, and that it could transmit signals much faster than we imagine, making it possibly able to think.
Here are some excerpts from Dr. Hossenfelder’s fascinating talk:
Cameron Bertuzzi of Capturing Christianity has put up a new video titled, “Why Atheism is Silly,” in which he responds to critics of his earlier video on atheism. The new video is quite slick and not too long (less than 30 minutes), so it is well worth watching. Here it is:
Here are my own comments, posted on Bertuzzi’s blog, which I wrote in an irenic vein. In my rely, I deliberately refrained from discussing the problem of evil, despite the fact that I find Bertuzzi’s soul-building theodicy utterly unconvincing, as he went on to say that that he was willing to allow for argument’s sake that the probability of the evil we see in the world under perfect being theism (PBT) might be as low as one in a trillion. I also refrained from mentioning his careless mathematical error of equating one in a million with .0000001 instead of .000001, as it did not materially affect his argument.
Hi everyone. Happy New Year! I thought I’d kick off the year with a video by a skeptic named Brandon (who goes by the moniker of Mindshift), titled, “10 New Year’s Resolutions for Christianity.” You might not agree with everything he says, but he does make a lot of valid points. Enjoy!
Feel free to share your thoughts and ask questions.
The problem of evil is arguably the most difficult philosophical problem facing Christians and other theists who believe in an omniGod — a God who is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. The problem, concisely stated: If God is omnibenevolent, he doesn’t want his creatures to suffer. If he’s omnipotent, he can eradicate evil and suffering from the world. Why, then, doesn’t he do so? Why is there so much evil and suffering?
Atheists have no trouble explaining it. If there’s no God, then there’s no one to prevent evil and suffering. Yet some people insist that the problem of evil is a problem for atheists, too.
George Lakoff is an American cognitive linguist and philosopher, best known for his work, Metaphors We Live By, which he co-authored with Mark Johnson. In this six-minute interview with Robert Lawrence Kuhn, he makes a powerful case against the very coherence of the notion that we have an afterlife.
For my part, I think Lakoff’s case against personal immortality is the strongest one I’ve ever seen, and I’d be interested to see how readers respond to it. I have a few brief thoughts, which I’d like to share.
With the passage of time, the 78-year-old former president’s speeches have grown darker, harsher, longer, angrier, less focused, more profane and increasingly fixated on the past, according to a review of his public appearances over the years.
In an entertaining and wide-ranging interview with Christian apologist Cameron Bertuzzi, philosophy professor Philip Goff explains his reasons for converting to a rather unorthodox form of Christianity, characterized by belief in a finite God (allowing him to accept the fine-tuning argument while accounting for the evil we observe in the world by denying that this God possesses unlimited power), panentheism (as opposed to a purely supernatural view of God), a participatory view of the atonement (he rejects penal substitution) and a somewhat unorthodox view of Jesus’ resurrection (like Dale Allison, he thinks Jesus’ body was physical but not tangible). Alternatively, those who prefer reading to watching a video can peruse his recent article in Aeon, “My Leap Across the Chasm”.
In his interview, Goff mentions the fine-tuning argument, so I’ll also include this amicable debate between fine-tuning critic James Fodor and fine-tuning proponent Dr. Robin Collins.
The previous post (by vjtorley) featured a video by a YouTube Christian apologist, IMBeggar, in which he attempts to defuse the problem of evil. It’s riddled with problems as you can see by reading the OP and the comments.
Out of curiosity, I visited IMBeggar’s YouTube channel and watched some of his other videos. One of them, titled “Why doesn’t God just show Himself?”, tackled the problem of divine hiddenness. It was even worse than the one that addressed the problem of evil. I was surprised to find that I disagreed with every major point.
